Protect students and educators from no-fault evictions

With the school year set to begin in California, parents, educators and landlords should be aware of the unique problems caused by evictions during the school year as well as new local laws in Santa Monica and San Francisco that limit such evictions.

In April 2016, San Francisco enacted an ordinance that prohibits no-fault evictions of families with students under the age of 18 or any educator during the school year by adding a new affirmative defense to evictions. The ordinance, supported by findings that school year evictions had a harmful effect on a child's education, was immediately challenged in court by the San Francisco Apartment Association and the Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute. They filed a petition for writ of mandate alleging that the ordinance was preempted by state laws that govern evictions. The trial court agreed the ordinance was preempted and issued a writ of mandate prohibiting the city from enforcing it.

While San Francisco's appeal of the trial court's decision was pending, a school year eviction case emerged in Southern California. It was the first week of August 2017, and Santa Monica student Audrey Bridges along with her mother Alice knew that Audrey's first day of third grade was just around the corner. Thanks to Alice's and the teachers' diligent preparations, Audrey was all set for the school year. Much paperwork had been filled out and many meetings took place to make sure that, among other things, specialized services for Audrey's learning disabilities were connected to her new classes. The familiarity the teachers, counselors and office staff already had with Audrey had played a big role in the success of these preparations.

As a single mother, Alice Bridges also worked to make sure that her own support services (babysitting, ex-husband, flexible work hours and afterschool pick-ups) were all lined up to make the school year a successful one.

But all their work was suddenly compromised as that same week, Alice's landlord served her with a termination of tenancy notice.

The notice surprised Alice as she had always paid her rent on time and had never violated the lease. And the notice was a nasty surprise as it gave Audrey and Alice only until the end of September to move out. Alice didn't think they could find another affordable place in Santa Monica, and certainly not that quickly. And she could not imagine having to leave Santa Monica and transfer Audrey away from her school.

According to frontline staff at the Santa Monica city attorney's office and the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, this situation is emblematic of many school-year evictions. No-fault eviction notices (such as those based on owner's intent to occupy the unit or withdraw it from the rental market) occur year-round, but those occurring for families during the school year are of particular concern to any community. All students have their unique and individualized relationship with a school, along with plans and support systems built around the school. For students with disabilities like Audrey, there are also unique, tailored services that have been applied for and approved.

Moreover, studies such as "Moving Matters: The Causal Effect of Moving Schools on Student Performance," The MIT Press, Vol. 12, Issue 4 (2017), cited by San Francisco (and later by Santa Monica), conclude that moving or changing schools in the middle of the school year can be harmful for a child's education as they are likely to disrupt peer networks and interfere with the learning process. School year evictions are also linked to lower standardized test performances. Current findings show that students' mobility most consistently affects their writing. Along these same lines, the school year eviction of a teacher or other significant school staff member is another disruption that can harm a student's education.

But that still leaves the issue raised by San Francisco's landlord organizations, that of preemption by the state's unlawful detainer statutes, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1159 et seq. San Francisco's appeal of the writ of mandate became San Francisco Apartment Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco, 20 Cal. App 5th 510 (2018). In that case, decided in February, the 1st District Court of Appeal cited Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal. 3d 129 (1976), as providing the relevant framework. In Birkenfeld, the California Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff's preemption argument against local rent control laws limiting the grounds for eviction by distinguishing between the substantive purpose of the rent control rules and the purely procedural purpose of the state law.

While acknowledging that the school year ordinance illustrated the sometimes elusive nature of the substantive-procedural distinction, the Court of Appeal determined that San Francisco's law did not impose any procedural requirements. Instead, to fulfill its substantive purpose "to protect children from the disruptive impact of moving during the school year or losing a relationship with a school employee" the ordinance had merely a procedural impact, one that was necessary to effectuate the substantive purpose. The court concluded the ordinance was not preempted, and it reversed the judgment.

Following the San Francisco decision and to protect families in the future, the Santa Monica city council adopted an ordinance in May 2018 that enhances tenant protections for students and educators against no-fault evictions during the school year. Under the law, a court should not grant an eviction if all of the following are true:

(1) a child under the age of 18 or any educator resides in the unit;

(2) the child or educator is a tenant in the unit or has a custodial or family relationship with a tenant in the unit;

(3) the tenant has resided in the unit for 12 months or more;

(4) the effective date of the notice of termination of tenancy falls during the school year;

(5) the termination does not allege any fault of the tenant but is based on the owner's intent to occupy, demolish or withdraw the unit from the rental market.

Santa Monica tenants in this situation should not wait for the eviction litigation before acting. As soon as they get the termination notice, they should inform their landlord, preferably in writing, of the new law. If that response doesn't result in the landlord's immediate withdrawal of the eviction notice, the tenants should contact an attorney as well as the city attorney's office. For landlords and their attorneys, there is not only the risk of losing the eviction case but tenant harassment laws such as Santa Monica's prohibit eviction attempts if the landlord has no reasonable cause to believe the facts favor eviction.

The names of the mother and daughter have been changed for privacy reasons. Though the law prohibiting school year evictions was not in place last year to protect Alice and Audrey, the city attorney's office was able to persuade the landlord to rescind the eviction notice.